But things worked out. Workers more or less made their peace with the Capitalists, and the distinctions between the two blurred. What do you call the owner of a shoe store? Bourgeoisie? But what does that mean, and why is that bad? Because it prevents revolution? What point is there in revolution if everyone can become bourgeoisie?
There is no point, not if the goal is to increase human felicity.
This is why I submit that what is primary in these extremist movements is not the supposed aim–here, a “Marxist” coup d’etat that instrinsically contradicts his writings–but ascension to power. Power is always the aim, and environmentalism, or anti-racism, or anti-colonialism, or gay rights, or feminism, or opposition to war are all simply propaganda tricks. They make appeals to the better natures of people uncorrupted by leftist antirationalism and hate, in order to win support for power, which can then be used for oppressive purposes. They are pretexts whose content can change on a dime, because they are intended as lies from the start.
Communists loved to talk of Capitalist “oppression”. Yet, if you don’t like your employer in a Capitalist system, you get another job. And if you are low down on the totem pole, if you work hard, you can climb. You can become CEO someday. You can start your own company.
In Communists societies, none of this is possible. They are much, much, much more repressive, with little to no chance of escape, and yet still sought after by leftists. To this day we see people extolling the virtues of the present Chinese Fascism, despite the political repression: the use of torture on dissidents, the rejection of the freedoms of religion, free speech, assembly, firearm ownership, protection from self incrimination, right to privacy, etc.
Obama’s chosen Propaganda Minister, Anita Dunn, quoted Mao in a public forum, for God’s sake, fully expecting that no one would protest, or do anything but nod and approve. And nobody did. It was Glenn Beck, if memory serves, who pointed out that we shouldn’t have people in top offices–and at that in the realm of media relations–who cannot see the problem in revering the single most prolific mass murderer of recorded history. She went “carrying pictures of Chairman Mao”, and made it with Obama anyhow.
What occurred to me this morning, and what is the real reason for this post, is that while it may be the case that the true loons are the Cultural Sadeists pushing their policies, the role of the Sybaritic Leftists is to not oppose it. They don’t oppose anything on principle, except opposing things on principle, so they are forced, by the nature of their chosen acquiescence to everything, to condone the crimes of the truly awful.
To be a true Liberal is to have principles which one holds sincerely, and which one fights for vigorously. In a truly civil society, there is enough room for numerous behavioral codes and beliefs, and no one group will attempt to deprive any other of basic rights of existence and opinion.
But we do not live in a civil society. The essence of the Agitation Propaganda of the Left is to convince the unwary that anyone who does not conform politically is either stupid or evil, and probably both. That is why I get so much hatred directed at me even when I am trying to be mild and impartial. If you don’t agree, you are an Other, and that is bad, since bigotry is at the root of the thing.
This is the problem I have with Gay Marriage. As I have said several times, I couldn’t care less if gay people use the word marriage. The problem I have is with their demonization of Christians, Jews and others, who reject their claims on religious grounds. They are not trying to negotiate a common ground, but rather blast everyone who disagrees with them as at root wicked, and unworthy of membership in their OWN society. This is, again, not civil.